Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM Macro on the Way

[-1]

Regarding this rumor - wouldn't the working distance of such a lens be quite short and difficult to use?

The short FL and low speed would give it substantiall DOF and could then with the IS be an easy to use starter macro for hand held closeups.

 

[100]

Regarding this rumor - wouldn't the working distance of such a lens be quite short and difficult to use?

If this lens is a 1:1 macro and 28mm is the real focal length at 1:1 (Most macro lenses have significant focus breathing at 1:1) the focusing distance will be 112mm.
The flange focal distance of EF-M is 18mm, so that leaves 94mm. The working distance depends on how short the lens will be, if I had to guess I’d say this will leave a working distance between 50 and 60mm.

 

[Ivan Muller]

mmmmm, I have had my M3 for almost a year now...its just too much of a Jekyll & Hyde camera for me to spend anymore money on lenses and such..I got the 22, standard zoom and evf...and frankly until a much much better M4 or whatever comes around I will just use it with my EF lenses via the adapter...

Eos bodies are just so easy to use, but the M3 works flawless one day and then the next try and pop a remote flash or get accurate AF or even any AF at all etc etc....I think i'm going to sit the next one out, I have sort of lost a bit of faith in Canon's ability to bring out a 'Eos' like M....

 

[AvTvM]

oh well ... not needed here, no buy.

I am still waiting for a ultra-compact tele prime ... EF-M 80mm/2.4 IS STM or thereabouts. Other than that no lens wish in EF-M mount.

 

[HaroldC3]

Would rather see a longer focal length and 2.8 so it could potentially be used as a portrait lens too. Since that possibility is out I can't see canon selling many copies of this lens. They would have almost be better to make macro tubes in Ef-m mount imo.

 

[Luds34]

Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia

Something doesn't gel.
If a macro, why 28mm (equivalent to 44mm on full frame), which is short for a macro.
If a new prime, why so close to the solitary 22mm.
Why such a modest aperture?
I know the specs are close to the EF 50/3.5 macro, but it would not be a priority focal length/aperture for the EF-M line.

There are 'normal' macro lenses (~30mm) for other MILC platforms, and f/3.5 isn't surprising for a macro lens. The shorter FL keeps the lens small, in keeping with one of the raisons d'être of MILC. So, I think it makes sense, and a macro lens is an obvious gap in the EF-M lineup. In fact, if you compare to the EF-S lineup, it's really the only major gap except an f/2.8 standard zoom, and that's unlikely to happen for size reasons (which is also why the 15-xx and 55-xxx zooms aren't as long).

Valid points and I do agree.

However it really seems to lock this lens in for just that purpose. I'm not big in macro so I prefer when they can perform a bit double duty. The EF-S 60mm made a solid portrait lens as well with it's longer focal length and the decently fast f/2.8 aperture.

The good news is this lens will probably be very compact so it won't be a tough decision to toss it in the bag and bring with... "just in case".

 

[Luds34]

As for Fuji, I own both the 23mm f/1.4 and the 56mm f/1.2 and whilst both are great lenses, I would trade them for smaller and lighter f/1.8-2 versions if they were available. Apparently Fuji has recognised this and have dropped their plans for fast longer lenses to shift their focus onto developing further f/2 primes (if Fujirumors information is correct).

I love fast glass! I've got 35mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2, 70-200mm f/2.8. However, when I decided to dabble in the Fuji system I did it with the intent of a smaller/compact system knowing I've got Canon FF for my narrow DOF, big bokeh, ultra low light needs. So I did go with a couple of f/2 primes, including their new 35mm and I am happy with the decision. Some of those fast Fuji lenses are pretty sexy though and someday I may add one or two, but for now I feel that f/2 is typically fast enough for either subject isolation or shooting in low light, even on crop.

 

[okaro]

With EOS M the main idea is size. If you want a dedicated Macro Lens for specific purposes then Canon surely has one that can be used with any of their SLRs or with EOS M using an adapter. When they lenses for EOS M the size is a major issue. This means the size of the lens and also the size of the total equipment. A 28 mm is wide enough to be carried as a sole lens and it can also be used for occasional macro shots. A 60 mm would not meet these requirements. Sure the aperture is slow but the IS compensates this so it about matches the 22 mm. The standard kit lens has aperture f/4.5 at 28 mm. Sure it is close with the 22 mm but that's not an issue as it is not expected that one carries both.

 

[brad-man]

With EOS M the main idea is size. If you want a dedicated Macro Lens for specific purposes then Canon surely has one that can be used with any of their SLRs or with EOS M using an adapter. When they lenses for EOS M the size is a major issue. This means the size of the lens and also the size of the total equipment. A 28 mm is wide enough to be carried as a sole lens and it can also be used for occasional macro shots. A 60 mm would not meet these requirements. Sure the aperture is slow but the IS compensates this so it about matches the 22 mm. The standard kit lens has aperture f/4.5 at 28 mm. Sure it is close with the 22 mm but that's not an issue as it is not expected that one carries both.

You should have stopped with your first sentence. This lens is the second prime offering for the M. While I certainly do appreciate having a macro lens for this system, it should have more differentiation from the solitary first. Nobody that has an M and wants to use primes will ever leave home without the 22. It is tiny, it is quick and it is sharp. What does this 28 bring to the table other than macro? Sure, presumably it will be sharper than the 22 and the 18-55 and it has IS, but it is still a slow lens with an odd focal length. It is hard to believe that increasing the FL to 35-40mm and/or increasing max aperture to at least f/2.8 would dramatically increase the size. And even if it did, so what? If the sole purpose of the M was diminutive size, than there would be no zoom lenses at all. Lastly, the introduction of this lens makes it unlikely that Canon will release another macro in a FL which I (and I suspect others) consider more appropriate in my lifetime. This lens is too much of a one trick pony. While I am not in the camp that desires really fast primes for the M, I do feel that any prime released should be between f/1/8 and f/2.4, with the possible exception of a nice macro in an appropriate FL OK, I feel better now.

Italics used for emphasis are courtesy of an earlier thread...

 

[mb66energy]

I had preferred a 40mm macro lens (1:2 sufficient) with 2.8 + IS and moderately compact outline.

2.0 22
2.8 40 Macro
2.x 80 with good close focus capability (like AvTvM)

would have been great. Add a COMPACT 4.0 10mm with GREAT IQ and the EOS M prime
set would have been complete: Lenses that can be made much more compact compared to SLR versions which make sense for EOS M camera.

 

[Loswr]

With EOS M the main idea is size. If you want a dedicated Macro Lens for specific purposes then Canon surely has one that can be used with any of their SLRs or with EOS M using an adapter. When they lenses for EOS M the size is a major issue. This means the size of the lens and also the size of the total equipment. A 28 mm is wide enough to be carried as a sole lens and it can also be used for occasional macro shots. A 60 mm would not meet these requirements. Sure the aperture is slow but the IS compensates this so it about matches the 22 mm. The standard kit lens has aperture f/4.5 at 28 mm. Sure it is close with the 22 mm but that's not an issue as it is not expected that one carries both.

You should have stopped with your first sentence. This lens is the second prime offering for the M. While I certainly do appreciate having a macro lens for this system, it should have more differentiation from the solitary first. Nobody that has an M and wants to use primes will ever leave home without the 22. It is tiny, it is quick and it is sharp. What does this 28 bring to the table other than macro? Sure, presumably it will be sharper than the 22 and the 18-55 and it has IS, but it is still a slow lens with an odd focal length. It is hard to believe that increasing the FL to 35-40mm and/or increasing max aperture to at least f/2.8 would dramatically increase the size. And even if it did, so what? If the sole purpose of the M was diminutive size, than there would be no zoom lenses at all. Lastly, the introduction of this lens makes it unlikely that Canon will release another macro in a FL which I (and I suspect others) consider more appropriate in my lifetime. This lens is too much of a one trick pony. While I am not in the camp that desires really fast primes for the M, I do feel that any prime released should be between f/1/8 and f/2.4, with the possible exception of a nice macro in an appropriate FL OK, I feel better now.

If you want a longer f/2.8 macro, size isn't (see what I did there?) your main concern – adapt a 60/2.8 or 100/2.8 lens. As a macro lens, there will already be a size penalty, even with a narrower aperture (compare the 100/2 to the 100/2.8 nonL macro, or the 200/2.8L to the 180/3.5L). A 28mm f/3.5 macro would be no larger than the M11-22 or M18-55 zooms, and thus would fit well in the M system. A 60mm or longer macro with a wider aperture...not so much.

 

[ahsanford]

If you want a longer f/2.8 macro, size isn't (see what I did there?) your main concern – adapt a 60/2.8 or 100/2.8 lens. As a macro lens, there will already be a size penalty, even with a narrower aperture (compare the 100/2 to the 100/2.8 nonL macro, or the 200/2.8L to the 180/3.5L). A 28mm f/3.5 macro would be no larger than the M11-22 or M18-55 zooms, and thus would fit well in the M system. A 60mm or longer macro with a wider aperture...not so much.

+1. As the clearly '3rd ranked' mount in the system, there will be trickle down opportunities to use EF-S or EF glass for more specific needs.

And I don't see this lens as a chance to get more bang for the buck at another FL. 'It should also be crazy fast or a useful alternate prime focal length' misses the point. EF-M needs a macro lens -- throw FL out for a moment -- and being on EOS-M platform, it probably should be small. Further EOS-M most certainly isn't collared for professionals (yet), and as such, IS is a really good idea for it.

So let's add it up:

Is it a macro? Yes.
Is it small? Presumably. (This is probably what's driving the choice for a wider FL.)
Does it have IS? You betcha.

Job done.

- A

 

[brad-man]

If you want a longer f/2.8 macro, size isn't (see what I did there?) your main concern – adapt a 60/2.8 or 100/2.8 lens. As a macro lens, there will already be a size penalty, even with a narrower aperture (compare the 100/2 to the 100/2.8 nonL macro, or the 200/2.8L to the 180/3.5L). A 28mm f/3.5 macro would be no larger than the M11-22 or M18-55 zooms, and thus would fit well in the M system. A 60mm or longer macro with a wider aperture...not so much.

Actually I requested a 35-40mm f/2.8, and while I certainly agree that it would be larger, I feel the added capability and versatility of the lens would be well worth the compromise. The 28mm is too niche for a system with only two primes. Obviously YMMV.

 

[brad-man]

If you want a longer f/2.8 macro, size isn't (see what I did there?) your main concern – adapt a 60/2.8 or 100/2.8 lens. As a macro lens, there will already be a size penalty, even with a narrower aperture (compare the 100/2 to the 100/2.8 nonL macro, or the 200/2.8L to the 180/3.5L). A 28mm f/3.5 macro would be no larger than the M11-22 or M18-55 zooms, and thus would fit well in the M system. A 60mm or longer macro with a wider aperture...not so much.

+1. As the clearly '3rd ranked' mount in the system, there will be trickle down opportunities to use EF-S or EF glass for more specific needs.

And I don't see this lens as a chance to get more bang for the buck at another FL. 'It should also be crazy fast or a useful alternate prime focal length' misses the point. EF-M needs a macro lens -- throw FL out for a moment -- and being on EOS-M platform, it probably should be small. Further EOS-M most certainly isn't collared for professionals (yet), and as such, IS is a really good idea for it.

So let's add it up:

Is it a macro? Yes.
Is it small? Presumably. (This is probably what's driving the choice for a wider FL.)
Does it have IS? You betcha.

Job done.

- A

Where did I say a macro wasn't welcome?

 

[AvTvM]

moSt people i know buy a macro lens and end up using it very rarely for macro shots. like myself. if i shoot something small/macro it is always a planned shooting and size if lens does not matter. i am very happy onbthose few occasions to use the excellent ef-s 60/2.8. i will never buy another crop sensor macro lens. if anything i'd buy the ef 100/2.8.

 

[ahsanford]

Where did I say a macro wasn't welcome?

Fair -- you didn't. I just feel like you (and one other prior poster, I believe) might just want another fast prime for EOS-M more than you want a macro, or if it's a macro, it would be nice if it were fast.

Take a number in that case (re: more primes please) -- I think everyone on this forum would agree with you. Canon is just keeping it simple and scratching a very clear gap (and nothing else) with this lens. Our primes will eventually come, I'm sure.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

If you want a longer f/2.8 macro, size isn't (see what I did there?) your main concern – adapt a 60/2.8 or 100/2.8 lens. As a macro lens, there will already be a size penalty, even with a narrower aperture (compare the 100/2 to the 100/2.8 nonL macro, or the 200/2.8L to the 180/3.5L). A 28mm f/3.5 macro would be no larger than the M11-22 or M18-55 zooms, and thus would fit well in the M system. A 60mm or longer macro with a wider aperture...not so much.

+1. As the clearly '3rd ranked' mount in the system, there will be trickle down opportunities to use EF-S or EF glass for more specific needs.

And I don't see this lens as a chance to get more bang for the buck at another FL. 'It should also be crazy fast or a useful alternate prime focal length' misses the point. EF-M needs a macro lens -- throw FL out for a moment -- and being on EOS-M platform, it probably should be small. Further EOS-M most certainly isn't collared for professionals (yet), and as such, IS is a really good idea for it.

So let's add it up:

Is it a macro? Yes.
Is it small? Presumably. (This is probably what's driving the choice for a wider FL.)
Does it have IS? You betcha.

Job done.

- A

the 28mm macro will most likely be around the same size or smaller than the Sony E 30mm 3.5 macro.

so slightly smaller than the 11-22mm with no extension, and MUCH smaller than the 60mm 2.8

not to mention. it should be cheap. probably be around $200-$250, which is what the Sony 30mm macro is.

Also interestingly it's a focal that atypically iphone users would see in macro mode. something to also consider.

we're not talking about a big, or expensive lens here, and easily adds to the lens portfolio.

when i first thought about it - it was a WTF.. but it's growing on me. not to mention, with 24MP, tight working distance isn't nearly as much of a problem.

I like the fact that the 11-22 is "near macro" being around 1:3 having a longer focal there would be handy. and the 60mm is nice on the M3, but it's big and it's off balance.

 

[Woody]

Anyhow back to the EF-M 28mm F/3.5, I'll pick it up, assuming it's sub $300 and small. It exemplifies why the M rocks, small, and powerful. I never shoot macro because, I even get picky with my M setup these days with what I throw in the bag. Tiny cheap macro pancake? Sure, throw it in. Might start taking more macro shots, if I actually have a macro lens on me at all times, what a thought. Same idea why I bought the M to begin with, to have a camera that doesn't suck on me all the time for personal use.

Sony has an equivalent APS-C E-mount lens:
Sony 30 mm f/3.5 macro (1:1), 138 g, US$253
http://www.sony.com.sg/electronics/camera-lenses/sel30m35

So, I guess there must be fans for small lightweight macro lenses.

 

[rrcphoto]

Where did I say a macro wasn't welcome?

Fair -- you didn't. I just feel like you (and one other prior poster, I believe) might just want another fast prime for EOS-M more than you want a macro, or if it's a macro, it would be nice if it were fast.

Take a number in that case (re: more primes please) -- I think everyone on this forum would agree with you. Canon is just keeping it simple and scratching a very clear gap (and nothing else) with this lens. Our primes will eventually come, I'm sure.

- A

What's interesting about this, is there isn't a published, patent, yet for it. I'm sure there is a filed patent, but it hasn't been published yet.

egami / CR / CW only cover 1/100th of canon's patents and when it comes to lens patents .. religiously get them wrong.

so unless you have scoured canon's lens patents yourself .. that's probably incorrect.

each canon lens patent atypically has anywhere up to 10+ embodiments for use.

 

[noncho]

Some of the comments here are very interesting - encourage such lens because will be small and light and fine to use EF to EF-M converter for longer macro and portraits?

Come on, many more people want small and light 50 and 85 F2(or 40 and 75 etc) without bulky converters than short macro...